Application No: 16/P1623   Ward: Abbey

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to completion of a s106 agreement and conditions

Proposal: Demolition of existing office building and construction of a new five storey office building (Class B1 use) together with associated car/cycle parking and landscaping.

The Committee noted the officers report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda. The Committee received verbal representations from three objectors to the application, the Agent and Architect to the application, and Councillors Katy Neep and Charlie Chirico.

Objectors made comments including:

·         Out of keeping with the surrounding buildings

·         Too high  - 2 storeys higher than neighbours

·         Will take sunlight and light from Trinity Church, especially in the winter months

·         Not a good design – unsympathetic with cheap garish materials

·         DRP said glass and metal cladding is too much of a contrast with the other buildings in the area

·         Will be overbearing on an area that is currently a vibrant and dynamic family area

·         Goes against social cohesion in the area

·         Set too far forward

·         Want to see some greenery

In reply the Planning Officer Commented that the Church is not residential and therefore it cannot be given the same protection as a residential property would be for daylight and sunlight. There are a variety of materials used in the design which is a modern design and not in a conservation area

The Agent to the application made comments including:

·         It is a Policy Compliant development and residents said that they wanted offices only.

·         There is an existing permission for this land but it is a mixed use development.

·         Light levels for the Church are not required because it is not residential

The Architect to the application made comments including:

·         It is simple light  contemporary building

·         The external cladding is glass and can be in much softer colours than shown on plans

·         The building has an active frontage that references Wimbledon Town Centre

·         It is designed to revitalise the area

·         It is ‘smart’ building with a very good BREEAM rating

·         It is not as tall as the YMCA building

Councillor Katy Neep made comments including:

·         Does not comply with Merton Core Strategy

·         Modern block out of context with its surroundings in terms of its height, bulk and mass

·         Will not enhance the area – particularly when consider how the area is used by the community

·         Visibly higher than surrounding buildings and so not in keeping

·         We do have a Masterplan for this area that is not yet in place

Councillor Chirico made comments including:

·         To say it’s not as high as YMCA is not acceptable, as this building is in the middle of a community hub

·         Applicant said they looked to Town Centre when designing this building but this is not the Town Centre,

·         It is a key part of The Broadway where key services are provided

·         Want to see a low rise, high quality development with brick not glass

Officers asked the Committee to note that there is currently no approved masterplan or height guidelines for development in this area.

Members asked about the DRP (Design Review Panel) comments – they asked for a reduction in height by one storey and also said that it was too different from its neighbours. Officers said that the sixth storey had been reduced and incorporated but not removed, it would not be seen from the street but could be seen from the gardens of properties on the other side of the road.

Members asked about the existing approved scheme and noted that the scheme being considered tonight was taller and bigger but a more attractive design. The new scheme mirrored the extant scheme at the back.

Members Commented:

·         They did not want to see anything larger than the extant scheme

·         This application was too big and too high

·         Design of building not good enough to overcome the other objections

·         The extant scheme was proportional and balanced, this scheme is not

·         This proposal does not relate to its neighbours; it ignores its neighbours. DRP commented that it did not take heed of its neighbours

·         DRP commented that this Scheme is too different from its neighbours

·         Would like to see some greenery

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1.      REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

·         Unacceptable height, size, bulk, and massing of the proposed building

·         Design does not relate to neighbouring buildings

2.      DELEGATE to the Director of Environment & Regeneration the authority to make any appropriate amendments in the context of the above to the wording of the grounds of refusal including references to appropriate policies